Background: The benefit of distinguishing between disabling versus nondisabling deficit in mild acute ischemic stroke due to endovascular thrombectomy-targetable vessel occlusion (EVT-tVO; including anterior circulation large and medium-vessel occlusion) is unknown. We compared safety and efficacy of acute reperfusion treatments in disabling versus nondisabling mild EVT-tVO. Methods: From the Safe Implementation of Treatments in Stroke-International Stroke Thrombolysis Register, we included consecutive acute ischemic stroke patients (2015-2021) treated within 4.5 hours, with full NIHSS items availability and score ≤5, evidence of intracranial internal carotid artery, M1, A1-2, or M2-3 occlusion. After propensity score matching, we compared efficacy (3-month modified Rankin Scale score of 0-1, modified Rankin Scale score of 0-2, and early neurological improvement) and safety (nonhemorrhagic early neurological deterioration, any intracerebral or subarachnoid hemorrhage, symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage, and death at 3-month) outcomes in disabling versus nondisabling patients-adopting an available definition. Results: We included 1459 patients. Propensity score matched analysis of disabling versus nondisabling EVT-tVO (n=336 per group) found no significant differences in efficacy (modified Rankin Scale score 0-1: 67.4% versus 71.5%, P=0.336; modified Rankin Scale score 0-2: 77.1% versus 77.6%, P=0.895; early neurological improvement: 38.3% versus 44.4%, P=0.132) and safety (nonhemorrhagic early neurological deterioration: 8.5% versus 8.0%, P=0.830; any intracerebral hemorrhage or subarachnoid hemorrhage: 12.5% versus 13.3%, P=0.792; symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage: 2.6% versus 3.4%, P=0.598; and 3-month death: 9.8% versus 9.2%, P=0.844) outcomes. Conclusions: We found similar safety and efficacy outcomes after acute reperfusion treatment in disabling versus nondisabling mild EVT-tVO; our findings suggest to adopt similar acute treatment approaches in the 2 groups. Randomized data are needed to clarify the best reperfusion treatment in mild EVT-tVO.

Reperfusion Treatments in Disabling Versus Nondisabling Mild Stroke due to Anterior Circulation Vessel Occlusion / Schwarz, Ghil; Cascio Rizzo, Angelo; Matusevicius, Marius; Giussani, Giuditta; Invernizzi, Paolo; Melis, Fabio; Lesko, Norbert; Toni, Danilo; Agostoni, Elio Clemente; Ahmed, Niaz. - In: STROKE. - ISSN 0039-2499. - 54:3(2023), pp. 743-750. [10.1161/STROKEAHA.122.041772]

Reperfusion Treatments in Disabling Versus Nondisabling Mild Stroke due to Anterior Circulation Vessel Occlusion

Toni, Danilo;
2023

Abstract

Background: The benefit of distinguishing between disabling versus nondisabling deficit in mild acute ischemic stroke due to endovascular thrombectomy-targetable vessel occlusion (EVT-tVO; including anterior circulation large and medium-vessel occlusion) is unknown. We compared safety and efficacy of acute reperfusion treatments in disabling versus nondisabling mild EVT-tVO. Methods: From the Safe Implementation of Treatments in Stroke-International Stroke Thrombolysis Register, we included consecutive acute ischemic stroke patients (2015-2021) treated within 4.5 hours, with full NIHSS items availability and score ≤5, evidence of intracranial internal carotid artery, M1, A1-2, or M2-3 occlusion. After propensity score matching, we compared efficacy (3-month modified Rankin Scale score of 0-1, modified Rankin Scale score of 0-2, and early neurological improvement) and safety (nonhemorrhagic early neurological deterioration, any intracerebral or subarachnoid hemorrhage, symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage, and death at 3-month) outcomes in disabling versus nondisabling patients-adopting an available definition. Results: We included 1459 patients. Propensity score matched analysis of disabling versus nondisabling EVT-tVO (n=336 per group) found no significant differences in efficacy (modified Rankin Scale score 0-1: 67.4% versus 71.5%, P=0.336; modified Rankin Scale score 0-2: 77.1% versus 77.6%, P=0.895; early neurological improvement: 38.3% versus 44.4%, P=0.132) and safety (nonhemorrhagic early neurological deterioration: 8.5% versus 8.0%, P=0.830; any intracerebral hemorrhage or subarachnoid hemorrhage: 12.5% versus 13.3%, P=0.792; symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage: 2.6% versus 3.4%, P=0.598; and 3-month death: 9.8% versus 9.2%, P=0.844) outcomes. Conclusions: We found similar safety and efficacy outcomes after acute reperfusion treatment in disabling versus nondisabling mild EVT-tVO; our findings suggest to adopt similar acute treatment approaches in the 2 groups. Randomized data are needed to clarify the best reperfusion treatment in mild EVT-tVO.
2023
intracranial hemorrhage; propensity score; reperfusion; stroke; thrombectomy
01 Pubblicazione su rivista::01a Articolo in rivista
Reperfusion Treatments in Disabling Versus Nondisabling Mild Stroke due to Anterior Circulation Vessel Occlusion / Schwarz, Ghil; Cascio Rizzo, Angelo; Matusevicius, Marius; Giussani, Giuditta; Invernizzi, Paolo; Melis, Fabio; Lesko, Norbert; Toni, Danilo; Agostoni, Elio Clemente; Ahmed, Niaz. - In: STROKE. - ISSN 0039-2499. - 54:3(2023), pp. 743-750. [10.1161/STROKEAHA.122.041772]
File allegati a questo prodotto
File Dimensione Formato  
schwarz-et-al-2023-reperfusion-treatments-in-disabling-versus-nondisabling-mild-stroke-due-to-anterior-circulation.pdf

solo gestori archivio

Note: SchwarzReperfusion Treatments_2023
Tipologia: Versione editoriale (versione pubblicata con il layout dell'editore)
Licenza: Tutti i diritti riservati (All rights reserved)
Dimensione 489.25 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
489.25 kB Adobe PDF   Contatta l'autore

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11573/1695563
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 1
  • Scopus 3
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 5
social impact